Maloney -v- Ireland & Ors [2009] IEHC 291 (25 June 2009)

Maloney -v- Ireland & Ors [2009] IEHC 291 (25 June 2009)

The plaintiff lacks locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of s. 30(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 because his detention was not based solely on possession of information but on suspicion of involvement in the offence. The challenge is hypothetical and does not meet the threshold for standing as established in Cahill v. Sutton. Therefore, no fair case to be tried exists and the application must be dismissed.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 291
Parties
Plaintiff: David Maloney; Defendant: Ireland; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: The Director of Public Prosecution; Defendant: Sergeant John Cribbin, Member in Charge of Tallaght Garda Station
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Prior to Criminal Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Constitutionality of Statutes, Interlocutory Injunctions, Detention Powers, Admissibility of Evidence
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Locus Standi Constitutionality of Statutes Interlocutory Injunctions Detention Powers Admissibility of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Maloney

Plaintiff

Ireland

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

The Director of Public Prosecution

Defendant

Sergeant John Cribbin, Member in Charge of Tallaght Garda Station

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Prior to Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of s. 30(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939
  2. 2 Whether s. 30(1) is repugnant to the Constitution or incompatible with Article 5 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether an interlocutory injunction restraining prosecution should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff lacks locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of s. 30(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 because his detention was not based solely on possession of information but on suspicion of involvement in the offence. The challenge is hypothetical and does not meet the threshold for standing as established in Cahill v. Sutton. Therefore, no fair case to be tried exists and the application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the plaintiff’s application for interlocutory injunction